Five-Minute Workday Article

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

"Fighter's Surge" is a class feature, not derived from the slayer theme. 2nd level abilities all appear to be class features in the playtest characters.

It is indeed a class feature and it may help, but it seems rather underwhelming to me, but maybe I am expecting a high level caster to cast more spells then he actually will be able to. 3E had you casting at least 20 at level 7 (0-4 spell levels, 4 slots each) or so, if a D&D Next caster at that level can cast 7 spells and the Fighter can Surge 7/day, it may be close. Of course, depend also what the caster can actually cast (A Disintegrate is a lot powerful than a single extra action).

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Ok. I didn't have the playtest docs at hand so I was not sure. Anyway it's a very limited nova ability compared to what a caster can do.

Well if we take the most damaging Wizard spell at 2nd level, Burning hands, that's potentially 4 x (2d4+3) to multiple targets. Hard to judge how many things that would hit, but let's say 3 each time. Average is 8 damage to 3 creatures 4 times or 96 damage total.

The Fighter can attack twice a round, twice a day. So that will be a total of 6 attacks on single creatures at 2d6+7 damage each. Average is 14 damage to 6 creatures or 84 damage total.

The Fighter has to hit but deals 3 on a miss, BH grants a save but deals 4 on a save. I'd say these novas were comparable - the Fighter can get a single target better and the Wizard multiple targets better, potentially with flexibility by not always casting BH.

 

[delericho]

Except you need actions to sustain those zones/effects, you can only have one stance active at a time

Not every character has those sorts of powers - in our last 4e game, none of the characters did. Besides, if the group has consensus on novaing, then the characters who do have them just get to drop and swap the effects more quickly.

4e helps the situation somewhat, and that is to its credit. But what helped considerably more was the determination by most 4e groups not to adopt the nova/rest playstyle.

and the pesky rule about only being able yto benefit from one extended rest in a 24-hour period anyway.

You know, I pointed out a similar thing to my 3e group. Their response? "Fine, we'll sit around for 16 hours, and then take a night's sleep."

Bottom line: if they decide they're not going to progress until they're at full potential, there's not a hell of a lot the DM can do about it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This has provoked an interesting idea in my head. There are many ways to award XP in different games (I believe there was a frontpage discussion about this some time ago). Many people talk about increasing encounter difficulty or throwing wandering monsters at parties who rest too frequently, when this is exactly what they want: more XP.

Instead, give far less XP for defeating a monster (if any) and make the majority of XP come from quest completion. Every day that goes by before completing a quest, that XP total drops, at a rate appropriate to the quest. It may sound a little gamist, but throws an interesting dynamic into decisions about resting. I could imagine two different factions offering essentially the same quest, one with a high starting XP and rapid decline, the other with low starting XP and gentle decline. How confident does the party feel?

Depending on group desires the XP over game time could apply to other things than just quests. If the group is exploration focused, for example, the XP earned in a day increases with the amount of area explored.

If encountering opposition and beating things up are obstacles to earning the greatest XP instead of being the primary source then the party will have more incentive not to nova and to try and cover as much ground as possible before resting.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

This has provoked an interesting idea in my head. There are many ways to award XP in different games (I believe there was a frontpage discussion about this some time ago). Many people talk about increasing encounter difficulty or throwing wandering monsters at parties who rest too frequently, when this is exactly what they want: more XP.

Instead, give far less XP for defeating a monster (if any) and make the majority of XP come from quest completion. Every day that goes by before completing a quest, that XP total drops, at a rate appropriate to the quest. It may sound a little gamist, but throws an interesting dynamic into decisions about resting.

I've found in actual play that removing all but "quest XP" from equation steers clear of gamist and actually aids immersion. The players no longer risk their character's lives fighting everything just to gain XP. They try to conserve resources so they can press on when a mission is on the line. And frequent resting in dangerous territory where random encounters yield little to no benefit are a thing they want to avoid.

That could be one simple mechanical change that supports the "adventure balance instead of encounter balance" and help avoid the 5-minute workday. Make core XP awards based upon completing an important goal.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

So, we're down to five minutes? It was a fifteen-minute day in 3e.

I always felt that the 15-min AD was a playstyle issue anyway

<snip>

So I agree with Mearls. I especially like that they're looking at suggesting a budget for an adventuring day, and allowing the DM to decide whether that should be one combat or five.

Agreed. When I was GMing at a game store and that technique was tried, the party would get hit with wandering monsters or something to interrupt the rest. Not every time but often enough that the players decided not to Nova anymore.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The fact that we've had complaints from players and DMs of the 5 (or 15) minute workday in AD&D, 2E, 3E *and* while playing 4E pretty much tells us there is NOTHING that can be done. You know why? Because every DM is different, every DM designs his combats and adventures different, and every reason why "going nova" occurs to a particular game is completely different. It's NOT POSSIBLE to fix the issue, because there is no ONE ISSUE to fix.

All we need to see to prove this point is the incessant arguments here on ENWorld about things like how punishing the PCs for resting is lauded by half the players as a good way to condition them not to try and rest often and in any location... while the other half gets mad that they feel as though they are playing a "metagame" by artificially throwing extra combats out there, not because the story asks for it but purely as a punishment. And this is two opposite sides on just a single idea to solve the problem. Every other idea possibly offered up has the same amount of proponents and opponents. WOTC CAN'T WIN.

Even if WotC was to design and offer up in the DMG three different game mechanics in an effort to combat the "5 minute workday", we'd still get hundreds of players complaining that they didn't solve the issue. Even if they offered up FIVE different modules to try and rectify it, that still wouldn't be enough. Many players would still find ways to go nova within the confines of whatever style of game the DM was playing, and the DMs would have to figure out ways to deal with it.

The ONLY thing that can be done is to admit that there is no way to solve this issue, because like I said, there is NO ONE ISSUE. The "5 Minute Workday" is not an issue. It is a symptom of DMing Style, which is truly the issue. And you can't "solve" DMing Style-- because no DM cops to the idea that how they DM might really be the issue for why things they don't like keep happening.

 

[LostSoul]

That could be one simple mechanical change that supports the "adventure balance instead of encounter balance" and help avoid the 5-minute workday. Make core XP awards based upon completing an important goal.

I don't think that will work. If you use resources to achieve your goal, and there is no cost to rest, then the smart choice is to rest to get your resources back - so you can use them to achieve your goal.

I wonder which playstyles promote the 5-minute workday and which don't. I have some guesses: if you don't care about achieving goals, you're less likely to want your resources. If you don't need your resources (to achieve goals or not) then you're less likely to want them back. If you want encounters to drain all your resources then you'll want them back before the next one.

 

[WarlockLord]

So, the designers have no idea what they're doing and plan to dump it on the DM.


How is this different from anything else they've been doing? There's that stunt system Tom LaPille rolled out which inflicts -10 penalties to hit...in a bounded accuracy system, meaning you will never hit when you use them. There's the fact that skills literally are "argue with your DM until he lets you do what you want." There are the magic items which are not built into the math, but give numerical bonuses (so that paladin with shield of faith, +3 armor, and a +3 shield is invincible). There's the fact that they're catering to 1e and 2e grognards, nevermind that those guys think WotC is the devil. Not to mention that despite their "we'll include everybody" mantra, their game is based around "I ignore the numbers because I'm a real roleplayer!" Mearls comes straight out in one of the L&L articles and states that he's focused more on the story then the math, despite the fact that D&D stories pretty much write themselves.

I don't understand why everyone is so surprised by developer incompetence at this point.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't think that will work. If you use resources to achieve your goal, and there is no cost to rest, then the smart choice is to rest to get your resources back - so you can use them to achieve your goal.

I wonder which playstyles promote the 5-minute workday and which don't. I have some guesses: if you don't care about achieving goals, you're less likely to want your resources. If you don't need your resources (to achieve goals or not) then you're less likely to want them back. If you want encounters to drain all your resources then you'll want them back before the next one.

If XP rewards diminish the longer it takes to reach your goal and resting costs time, and allows the opposition to fortify positions then frequent rests will result in puny rewards and slow down gaining levels.

Anything that impedes XP gain will be avoided by most players if possible.